> On 06 Sep 2017, at 02:56, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On 2017/09/05 21:14, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Amit Langote writes:
>>> On 2017/09/05 15:48, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Here is the copyright in partition.h:
* Copyright (c) 2007-2017, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
I think
On 2017/09/05 21:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>> On 2017/09/05 15:48, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>> Here is the copyright in partition.h:
>>>
>>> * Copyright (c) 2007-2017, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
>>>
>>> I think it's reasonable that that matches the copyright in partition.c,
Amit Langote writes:
> On 2017/09/05 15:48, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> Here is the copyright in partition.h:
>>
>> * Copyright (c) 2007-2017, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
>>
>> I think it's reasonable that that matches the copyright in partition.c,
>> but partition.c has:
>>
>> * Portions
On 2017/09/05 15:48, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Here is the copyright in partition.h:
>
> * Copyright (c) 2007-2017, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
>
> I think it's reasonable that that matches the copyright in partition.c,
> but partition.c has:
>
> * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2017, Postgr
Here is the copyright in partition.h:
* Copyright (c) 2007-2017, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
I think it's reasonable that that matches the copyright in partition.c,
but partition.c has:
* Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2017, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
* Portions Copyright (c)
Jay Levitt writes:
> Marti Raudsepp wrote:
>> Please don't add that, just change 2011 to 2012. This is what the wiki says:
>> Q: May I add my own copyright notice where appropriate?
> To clarify, this is for an extension to be distributed separately on PGXN
> and GitHub, not for a contribution t
Marti Raudsepp wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 17:42, Jay Levitt wrote:
Should it be something like
Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2011, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
Portions Copyright (c) 2012, TipTap Inc.
Please don't add that, just change 2011 to 2012. This is what the wiki says:
Q: M
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 17:42, Jay Levitt wrote:
> Should it be something like
>
> Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2011, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
> Portions Copyright (c) 2012, TipTap Inc.
Please don't add that, just change 2011 to 2012. This is what the wiki says:
Q: May I add my own cop
I'm basing an extension off contrib/cube. I'm going to open-source it under
the existing PostgreSQL license, but I'm not sure how the copyright notice
should look - there isn't one at the moment. (In fact, there's no LICENSE or
COPYRIGHT file at all.)
Should it be something like
Portions Copy
It seems that psql's \copyright haven't been kept up-to-date with the
changes to COPYRIGHT file around 2001. psql \copyright says:
PostgreSQL Data Base Management System
Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2011, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
This software is based on Postgres95, formerly known
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > OK, I thought there was some uncertainty about whether people were using
> > the AIX code.
>
> Somebody suggested that the code might be needed on pre-5.3 AIX. But
> after I looked into the files and found out the code is only needed
> pre *4.3*, I thi
Bruce Momjian writes:
> OK, I thought there was some uncertainty about whether people were using
> the AIX code.
Somebody suggested that the code might be needed on pre-5.3 AIX. But
after I looked into the files and found out the code is only needed
pre *4.3*, I think the odds of anyone still wa
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I have received the attached email from HELIOS Software GmbH giving us
> > permission to change the licensing of HELIOS-contributed software to our
> > project to the official BSD license. (I am BCC'ing them.)
> >
> > I think we should re-add
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I have received the attached email from HELIOS Software GmbH giving us
> permission to change the licensing of HELIOS-contributed software to our
> project to the official BSD license. (I am BCC'ing them.)
>
> I think we should re-add the AIX files we removed from CVS ye
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I think we should re-add the AIX files we removed from CVS yesterday,
Why? That code is ten years obsolete.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.
I have received the attached email from HELIOS Software GmbH giving us
permission to change the licensing of HELIOS-contributed software to our
project to the official BSD license. (I am BCC'ing them.)
I think we should re-add the AIX files we removed from CVS yesterday,
and then remove the non-
On Thursday 01 January 2009 15:28:51 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Andrew Chernow wrote:
> > > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > > Greg Stark wrote:
> > > > >> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Chernow wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every source
file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only have to be one notice.
Because people often take source files and copy them for use in other
projects.
As
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?
One work, I assume.
I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every
source file? ISTM that if it wer
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Andrew Chernow wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Greg Stark wrote:
> > > >> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
> > > >> whole source tree considiered one work?
> > > >
> >
Greg Stark writes:
> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
> whole source tree considiered one work?
[ shrug... ] We've always done it this way.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To mak
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Andrew Chernow wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Greg Stark wrote:
> > >> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
> > >> whole source tree considiered one work?
> > >
> > > One work, I assume.
> > >
> >
>
Andrew Chernow wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Greg Stark wrote:
> >> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
> >> whole source tree considiered one work?
> >
> > One work, I assume.
> >
>
> I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every sou
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?
One work, I assume.
I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every source
file? ISTM that if it were one work there wo
Greg Stark wrote:
> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
> whole source tree considiered one work?
One work, I assume.
--
Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard driv
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?
--
Greg
On 1 Jan 2009, at 13:25, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have updated all the source files for a 2009 copyright; seems the
commit message was suppressed due to its size. Tom found a
I have updated all the source files for a 2009 copyright; seems the
commit message was suppressed due to its size. Tom found a few more and
I have adjusted for those as well.
--
Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 07:31:20PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
>> Can't we just remove the file outright? The last release of Ultrix
>> was in 1995.
> Sadly, in the US, at least, and so that file, absent sweeping changes
> in the law, will remain outside th
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
Sadly, in the US, at least, and so that file, absent sweeping changes
in the law, will remain outside the public domain until slightly after
the first human-crewed starship departs our solar system.
Hardly, we will have populated at least 3 solar s
David Fetter wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 07:31:20PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
FYI, I have received permission, below, to remove the Andrew Yu
copyright. Thanks.
Can't we just remove the file outright? The last release of Ultrix
was in 1995.
Sadly, in the US, at least
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 07:31:20PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >FYI, I have received permission, below, to remove the Andrew Yu
> >copyright. Thanks.
>
> Can't we just remove the file outright? The last release of Ultrix
> was in 1995.
Sadly, in the US, at least, and so th
Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > FYI, I have received permission, below, to remove the Andrew Yu
> > copyright. Thanks.
> >
>
> Can't we just remove the file outright? The last release of Ultrix was
> in 1995.
Yea, but that was the easy one because I already knew the author and
Bruce Momjian wrote:
FYI, I have received permission, below, to remove the Andrew Yu
copyright. Thanks.
Can't we just remove the file outright? The last release of Ultrix was
in 1995.
-Neil
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked
FYI, I have received permission, below, to remove the Andrew Yu
copyright. Thanks.
---
Andrew Yu wrote:
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> This header is originally part of a separate library
> package for dynamic loading on DECstation Ul
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > The file is /src/tools/copyright. We don't re-run it for minor releases
> > because there are almost no changes in minor releases. If we did run
> > it, it would change a lot of code for little purpose.
>
> It might make sense to run it once a year in
Bruce Momjian writes:
> The file is /src/tools/copyright. We don't re-run it for minor releases
> because there are almost no changes in minor releases. If we did run
> it, it would change a lot of code for little purpose.
It might make sense to run it once a year in early January, rather than
I have updated the copyrights on all the files in CVS HEAD, and updated
the script that does the work. The commit message was too long to be
automatically accepted.
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 12:02:19PM +0100, Matteo Beccati wrote:
> > >After all - you wouldn't want somebody to say that PostgreSQL copied
> > >them, because the date was later, would you? :-)
> > I think it won't be hard to understand what "Copyright (c) 1996-2006"
> > m
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 12:02:19PM +0100, Matteo Beccati wrote:
> >After all - you wouldn't want somebody to say that PostgreSQL copied
> >them, because the date was later, would you? :-)
> I think it won't be hard to understand what "Copyright (c) 1996-2006"
> means ;)
Maybe... but if it hasn't
Mark,
After all - you wouldn't want somebody to say that PostgreSQL copied
them, because the date was later, would you? :-)
I think it won't be hard to understand what "Copyright (c) 1996-2006"
means ;)
Best regards
--
Matteo Beccati
http://phpadsnew.com
http://phppgads.com
--
Sorry... deleted the post I am responding to too quickly...
The question was whether there was a program to bring the files up to date.
Why? The code was written, and copyrighted, at the time that it was
submitted. Unless the code has been completely re-written, the original
copyright date applie
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have been noticing that the copyright is wrong on many files (2005)...
> Do we have a utility to update the copyright?
We update those strings at major releases.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadc
I have been noticing that the copyright is wrong on many files (2005)...
Do we have a utility to update the copyright?
J
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
At 2004-12-31 23:49:35 -0500, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us wrote:
>
> With 8.0 coming out in 2005, I think I should update the copyrights on
> the files.
I don't think it actually makes any difference.
-- ams
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/re
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> With 8.0 coming out in 2005, I think I should update the copyrights on
> the files.
I see Marc has already done the update. I am checking with the
src/tools/copyright to make sure he got them all. He updated legal.sgml
so I bet he got them all.
--
Bruce Momjian
With 8.0 coming out in 2005, I think I should update the copyrights on
the files.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup.
"[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jean-Michel POURE)" stated in
comp.databases.postgresql.hackers:
> Le Mardi 25 Novembre 2003 07:32, Randolf Richardson a écrit :
>> I'm curious, has anyone consulted with a lawyer on this?
>
> Yes, the lawyer concluded that the number "2003" had been both
> registered as a tr
Le Mardi 25 Novembre 2003 07:32, Randolf Richardson a Ãcrit :
> I'm curious, has anyone consulted with a lawyer on this?
Yes, the lawyer concluded that the number "2003" had been both registered as a
trademark and a patented invention. Therefore, it is very likely that
Humanity will be able to j
>> Today I've d-loaded PostgreSQL 7.3.4.
>> I've seen in
>> $PGSQLD/doc/html/index.html
>> it still says
>> Copyright (C) 1996-2002
>> shouldn't it be 2003?
>
> We only update the copyright notices when we are preparing a major
> release. (Bruce just did it a week or two back for 7.4, for example
Christoph Haller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Today I've d-loaded PostgreSQL 7.3.4.
> I've seen in
> $PGSQLD/doc/html/index.html
> it still says
> Copyright (C) 1996-2002
> shouldn't it be 2003?
We only update the copyright notices when we are preparing a major
release. (Bruce just did it a week
Today I've d-loaded PostgreSQL 7.3.4.
I've seen in
$PGSQLD/doc/html/index.html
it still says
Copyright (C) 1996-2002
shouldn't it be 2003?
Regards, Christoph
PS
I've sent this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] before.
But in return I've got
Your message to pgsql-docs has been delayed, and requires the approva
Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I see in ri_triggers.c:
> >
> > * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2002, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
> > * Copyright 1999 Jan Wieck
> >
> > Jan, are you holding copyright on this or is it dual, and what does dual
> > mean in this case?
>
> S
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I see in ri_triggers.c:
>
> * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2002, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
> * Copyright 1999 Jan Wieck
>
> Jan, are you holding copyright on this or is it dual, and what does dual
> mean in this case?
Sure do I, do I? Hmmm, I can't even tell
I see in ri_triggers.c:
* Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2002, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
* Copyright 1999 Jan Wieck
Jan, are you holding copyright on this or is it dual, and what does dual
mean in this case?
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL
Say Bruce, I notice that a lot of the files under src/bin still have
# Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
and have never had a Postgres group copyright added to them. I updated
createdb just now to
# Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2001, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
55 matches
Mail list logo
